Posted on 01/23/2009 9:39:39 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Texas State Board of Education Votes To Require Students to Analyze and Evaluate Evolution
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
January 22, 2009
AUSTIN, TX--The Texas State Board of Education today voted to require students to analyze and evaluate common ancestry and natural selection, both key components of modern evolutionary theory. The surprising vote came after the Board failed to reinstate language in the overall science standards explicitly requiring coverage of the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories.
"The Texas Board of Education took one step back and two steps forward today," said Dr. John West of the Discovery Institute. "While we wish they would have retained the strengths and weaknesses language in the overall standards, they did something truly remarkable today. They voted to require students to analyze and evaluate some of the most important and controversial aspects of modern evolutionary theory such as the fossil record, universal common descent and even natural selection."
According to West these changes to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills means that teachers and students will be able to discuss the scientific evidence that is supportive as well as evidence that is not supportive of all scientific theories.
"Analyzing, evaluating, any additional scrutiny of evolution can only help students to learn more about the theory," said West, who is associate director of the Institute's Center for Science & Culture.
Ping!
IBT OH NO!!!!! We’re heading back into the dark ages and theocracy hysteria.
I wonder if there’s any criteria on the conclusions the kids have to reach as well, or if they’re going to let them think for themselves.
And if they use the scientific method they will come up with the same results as scientists have.
But if they use creation "science" they could come up with all sorts of oft-refuted anti-science nonsense.
In the interest of helping them out down there in Texas, here is a refutation of a few hundred of the most common creationist claims:
Index of Creationist Claims
It would seem that that will largely be based on the teacher, and the curiosity of the student. I kind of like how they did it. They took away the language that the ACLU et al key in on to file lawsuits.
No, not necessarily.
It is simply beyond the comprehension of any evolutionist that the data could be interpreted in any other way than to support evolution.
They need to break out of their boxes and stretch their brains a little bit.
There's a big difference between *We know evolution is true, let's find the evidence to support it. It's there, some where. We'll find it if we keep looking long enough, in all the right places.* and *Here's the evidence, what else can it tell us?*
And evos have been looking for that fossil to link man to apes for how long now?
"When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd." (Conway Morris, Simon [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11)
I always thought that good science came out of doubting old scientific theory and finding more/better ways to understand the world with new scientific theory. I always thought this was the way science “progressed.” But in this day and age, if you dare merely to question the science (global warming, evolution) then you’re a “buffoon” worthy of ridicule.
Very sad.
Hey Coyoteman, if belief in God is good enough for Einstein, it is good enough for me.
ROFLOL, how does that read when you translate it to English.
ROFLOL, how does that read when you translate it to English.
Perfectly stated.
[[They voted to require students to analyze and evaluate some of the most important and controversial aspects of modern evolutionary theory such as the fossil record, universal common descent and even natural selection.” ]]
That’s fine- but I ALSO think that they should be required to learn about al lthe times macroevolutionists point blank lied and deceived students in the past with outlandish claims like ‘we’re seeing examples of macroevolution right before our eyes’ when those makign htose claism KNEW full well they were NOT seeign that, but were witnessing symbiotic relationships which macroevolutionists were tryign to pass off as ‘NEW information’ arising, and ‘Macroevolutionary change’ when it was NOTHING more than a parassitic invasion into a host species!
As well, in addition to learning about hte weaknesses, student should be required ot learn about the IMPOSSIBILITIES- Until and unless they do- they are still going to be having a biased, subjective, non realistic ‘science’ (read ‘religious beleif’) shoved at them. Objective scinece means just that- presenting ALL the facts- regardless of whether those facts and evidences support or dismantle a given hypothesis. Anythign less is nothign but propoganda- NOT science!
Back before conservatives decided in the name of expediency to go all in for this "let the children decide" hogwash, high school was where the basics were drilled in. With a thorough understanding of the basics, you then went on in college and graduate school to find "more/better ways to understand the world with new scientific theory." Over time, that's proved a pretty effective way of making scientific "progress."
But I guess all that rote "learning" stuff is old hat these days. The "new age" way is to let ignorance "organically flower" into insight. Can't you just feeeel the freedom?
Thanks for the ping!
In the itnerest of keeping the public informed of the TRUTH- here’s a site that exposes the one you listed for the liars and deceivers they really are! http://www.trueorigin.org/
That site refutes the absurd claims of hte one you listed- it refutes practically everythign styated on your link- but that’;s ok- just wave your hand and pretend it doesn’t, and that you’re ‘doing science a favor’ by linking to a site that has been exposed time and time again as liars and frauds and deceivers.
Analyse and evaluate evolution? But but but, what ever happened to the old time religion of simple faith in TENS?
Jus’ gimme that old time religion,
Gimme that old time religion,
Gimme that old time religion,
‘Twas good enough for me.
‘Twas good enough for Sagan,
‘Twas good enough for Sagan,
‘Twas good enough for Sagan,
And it’s good enough for me!
‘Twas good enough for Dawkins,
‘Twas good enough for Dawkins,
‘Twas good enough for Dawkins,
And it’s good enough for me!
‘Twas good enough for Dennett,
‘Twas good enough for Dennett,
‘Twas good enough for Dennett,
And it’s good enough for me!
And so on.
[[Back before conservatives decided in the name of expediency to go all in for this “let the children decide” hogwash, high school was where the basics were drilled in.]]
mmm- Yes, the ‘basics’, like how Negros were inferior, how slavery was the right thing to do, how women were second class citizens underserving of a vote
Best to keep drilling it into the heads of kids that Macroevolution -despite evidence to the contrary, is still perfectly possible, when infact, it isn’t- Best to just keep that hypothesis alive and thriving. Best not to quesiton it or point out hte problems with it.
Call me crazy, but I don’t think we’re going to see any cutting edge theoretical constructs coming out of high school kids.
Sure, but thats a straw man. The point of letting children question science is to equip them be be analytical in their thinking and not just blindly accept the “science” or “fact” coming out of an “expert.”
Had we equipped children like this years ago we may not have created the generation of global warming crazies that put the current clown in the whitehouse.
Whats wrong with teaching children to think critically? If you’re a teacher it may be time for you to retire...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.